If we ask of any knowledge: "How do I know that it's true?", we may provide proof; yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. Therefore we have only three options when providing proof in this situation:
>The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
>The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
>The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)
This is known as Münchhausen trilemma. The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values, they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.
Has this ever been solved?
>>8164361
What is 'fundamentally weak' about the regressive argument?
>>8164361
Cant know nuffin. Just do what science does and take observed reality as your axiom, at least its consistent and historically productive
>>8164361
we use axiomatic disciplines (math) and scientific disciplines ("science" doesn't proof anything, it just makes models that work in the locality of current possible observations)
>>8164377
Yea, they should've known that /sci/ doesn't have people with high enough brain capacity to think about real stuff. All they do is playing rubic cube games
>>8164443
I'd rather talk about 2-orthoplexes.
I think there's a point where a regressive argument can reach an axiomatic one. If I say "firetrucks are red", most people will agree because there's nothing productive about asking the definition of red or firetruck. So I guess it depends on at what point you're willing to default to "can't know nuffin"
>>8164443
>they should've known
Whom do you mean by "they", Peasant?
>>8164361
>Has this ever been solved
Yes.
The solution is : How exactly do you expect us to solve it when justifying solutions are the very thing you are uncertain about faglord?
>>8164361
All 3 of those arguments are largely rejected by now.
The consensus is that the only requirement for validity of a model is self consistency.
There's always another why, that's why since only attempts to explain how.
In this view, truth is irrelevant.
